Jump to content

CWF gets a drubbing in the Towpath Talk


Mick and Maggie
 Share

Featured Posts

Which part of the article under discussion was copied verbatim from somebody else's article?

I have not claimed any specific article mentioned here is a verbatim copy of someone else's text, and certainly not the article referred to in the first post.

 

What I have said is it is a regular practice in NBW, for whom OP is a contributor, but I have specifically also said I'm not suggesting OP plagiarises himself.

 

If OP can start a thread about one publication it doesn't to me seem unreasonable to point out he supports another that regularly behaves in what I think to be a very shabby manner.

 

If you can't see the relevance please feel free to ignore my comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a bit of chew finding it-

 

Linky here-

 

I couldn't get the controls to work on that link if any body has the same chew try the link I posted.

 

I hit the button at the top to go to the last page and then put my pointer at the bottom of the page, then dragged the page. The turning page function is on the bottom of each page. Until that, I couldn't get around or get any page to work. Very frustrating for a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back at the OP - the writer first dismisses the Forum and not being a formal body, without management structure or accountability. Which is of course true.

 

Then he demands a corporate apology.

 

Make yer mind up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If OP can start a thread about one publication it doesn't to me seem unreasonable to point out he supports another that regularly behaves in what I think to be a very shabby manner.

 

Just remind me, because you ignored the previous request - as you have such an upright moral stance, holier than thou attitude and are the self appointed arbiter of morality. - I'm doing this in my best Senator Joe McCarthy voice - 'have you now or have you ever been published on NBW'

Simple Yes or No would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just remind me, because you ignored the previous request - as you have such an upright moral stance, holier than thou attitude and are the self appointed arbiter of morality. - I'm doing this in my best Senator Joe McCarthy voice - 'have you now or have you ever been published on NBW'

Simple Yes or No would do.

I didn't actively ignore a previous request to answer any question, but it sounds like I missed one.

 

Define "published".

 

I have never knowingly written an article for NBW.

 

Tom Crossley has taken at least one email I have written to him pointing out errors in another story, and edited it create an article of his own, but the end result was not my article, (although my name appeared in it), and had rather changed the emphasis of what I was trying to say.

 

As a result I have stopped submitting such emails.

 

Allan Richards has regularly selectively quoted words of mine used elsewhere, (including on this forum), but has never told me on any of those occasions he planned to do that. Sometimes where only a selective quote is used, and you can't see the rest of where it was "lifted" from, as you appreciate it can at least change the emphasis and sometimes even the meaning. This has happened, but it is not something I have any control over, do I?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not claimed any specific article mentioned here is a verbatim copy of someone else's text, and certainly not the article referred to in the first post.

 

What I have said is it is a regular practice in NBW, for whom OP is a contributor, but I have specifically also said I'm not suggesting OP plagiarises himself.

 

If OP can start a thread about one publication it doesn't to me seem unreasonable to point out he supports another that regularly behaves in what I think to be a very shabby manner.

 

If you can't see the relevance please feel free to ignore my comment.

 

Sorry. I thought you were implying this article was plagiaristic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not claimed any specific article mentioned here is a verbatim copy of someone else's text, and certainly not the article referred to in the first post.

 

What I have said is it is a regular practice in NBW, for whom OP is a contributor

 

In the previous design of NBW, there was once a secret page which Tom used as a staging page for articles he was working on. You could get to it by clicking a full stop somewhere on the front page.

 

On this page you could often see articles copied from elsewhere which were in the process of being reworded.....sometimes you would see the first half of the article as rewritten by Tom, with the second half still the original.

 

Plagiarism.....damn right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On this page you could often see articles copied from elsewhere which were in the process of being reworded.....sometimes you would see the first half of the article as rewritten by Tom, with the second half still the original.

 

Plagiarism.....damn right.

 

Tom is the editor, doing what editors do - the secrets in the name Editor. He might do things like correct smelling pisstakes and grammar, He might remove extraneous stuff make things clearer, He might even provide editorial comment. If I choose to write to a newspaper they don't have to publish. But they always reserve the right to modify (edit) the text. Then there maybe more than one letter written on a topic and rather than print a whole series. The editor aggregates the content.

 

It's what they do....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Tom is the editor, doing what editors do - the secrets in the name Editor. He might do things like correct smelling pisstakes and grammar, He might remove extraneous stuff make things clearer, He might even provide editorial comment. If I choose to write to a newspaper they don't have to publish. But they always reserve the right to modify (edit) the text. Then there maybe more than one letter written on a topic and rather than print a whole series. The editor aggregates the content.

 

It's what they do....

 

I think the secret's in the name Cobleigh.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a result I have stopped submitting such emails.

 

Editing out the unnecessary stuff the answer is an unequivocal yes.

 

So, now that you have chosen not to write to NBW. For personal reasons which might be well founded or otherwise as throughout the exchange you have failed to provide a single shred of evidence. You continue to demonstrate your prejudiced position and belief that it should also apply to everyone else. Possible because of the 'holier than thou' attitude and being the self appointed 'ombudsman of moral standards'. In other words, you have an opinion and you have expressed it. I disagree with all or part of your opinion. So therefore I don't subscribe to it. And you should not have ascribed it to me either.

 

Now I should return to the original posting. Before it was hijacked for whatever reason. I wrote to the editor on a couple of items on (P110) I have had a reply from the editor of Towpath Talk.

 

Hi Mick. Thank you for your comments which will be considered for our next available edition.

Regards. Janet Richardson. Editor, Towpath Talk.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence of what ?

I suspect Mick and.Maggie means evidence of plagiarism.

Tom is the editor, doing what editors do - the secrets in the name Editor. He might do things like correct smelling pisstakes and grammar, He might remove extraneous stuff make things clearer, He might even provide editorial comment. If I choose to write to a newspaper they don't have to publish. But they always reserve the right to modify (edit) the text. Then there maybe more than one letter written on a topic and rather than print a whole series. The editor aggregates the content.

 

It's what they do....

Yes, it is.

 

With one small difference that changes things completely- they normally edit things their own journalists have written, not things copied from elsewhere.

 

So you're saying that it's acceptable for the editor of, say, the Times, to copy an article from the Telegraph, edit it a bit, and stick the name of a Times journalist on the top?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect Mick and.Maggie means evidence of plagiarism.

 

Yes, it is.

With one small difference that changes things completely- they normally edit things their own journalists have written, not things copied from elsewhere.

So you're saying that it's acceptable for the editor of, say, the Times, to copy an article from the Telegraph, edit it a bit, and stick the name of a Times journalist on the top?

I expect this is exactly what most news is these days maybe in not such an extreme example, degrees I imagine can be awarded on the relevance of the article copied and edited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect this is exactly what most news is these days maybe in not such an extreme example, degrees I imagine can be awarded on the relevance of the article copied and edited.

 

Well, sort of - except everything reads the same because each paper is editing press releases sent to them. It's cheaper to do that than send a journalist to gather their own copy

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, sort of - except everything reads the same because each paper is editing press releases sent to them. It's cheaper to do that than send a journalist to gather their own copy

 

Richard

The difference is that editors lift copy from press releases that have been distributed for that purpose whereas the NBW blog has lifted passages word for word from sources such as this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is that editors lift copy from press releases that have been distributed for that purpose whereas the NBW blog has lifted passages word for word from sources such as this forum.

 

Yes, that's what I was trying to say

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is a trolling attempt, it is not one of the best I have seen!

Just so I have it straight, you are comparing NBW against the old fleet street newspapers. The ones that publish the paparazzi photographs of the royals and 'celebs'. Newspapers like the ones that did the tasteful and respectable reporting on the McCann family. Those paragons of virtue that hung out to dry the Dowler family. The tasteful reporting into the Soham murders. The ones who hacked phones to dig the dirt. And then when they were stuck for a victim - they just made it up.

 

The Levison inquiry was the brought about by the pressure of public revulsion. Now, plummeting to a new depth in besmirching the son of a man who has been dead for twenty years for political ends. Comparing NBW with these reptiles is demonstrating your gold standard prejudice or what you consider to be acceptable behavior.

 

Now that's trolling of a very high standard. Well done Alan, you have now hit a new low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.